On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
The thing is... you can't control the return path... so its non-managed and one relies upon the good-will of other people to have a good behaving 6to4 relay.
Yes I know as I wrote. But if every 6to4 relay operator cares about the service....
It may work now, and I do know people being super happy with 6to4, but if there would be 10000 people using same relay, the service may be degraded if it is just a sponsored service with revenue... It is a result of business reality.
Same for any relay. As you might notice you announce your 6to4 relay only for your customers.... And you monitor the operational status of your 6to4 relay, if ther is a need you deploy more....
Best Regards, Janos
G/ -----Original Message----- From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi@niif.hu] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:35 PM To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) Cc: Rémi Després; Randy Bush; Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops Subject: RE: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:Can be mananaged... but... if you use 6to4, then do you know the person running the relays? Do you even know who is running the relays? And why should the people running the relays care about you if you are not there direct customer?If a provider is encouraging to use 6to4, it will provide 6to4 relay for their customers: announcing anycast 6to4 relay address to them (probably only for them). Provider is monitoring operational status of 6to4 relay, traffic volume etc. plus help debugging MTU problems... Yes I know, this is can be done only for outgoing direction.... But if every 6to4 relay provider would be doing the same.... For example I used to know who is running the 6to4 relay used by me...(me and network operation team). For 1.5 years I don't care much about 6to4 relay anymore since I am using native IPv6 both at home and at work. Best Regards, Janos MohacsiG/ -----Original Message----- From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi@niif.hu] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:53 PM To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) Cc: Rémi Després; Randy Bush; Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops Subject: RE: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:Next to that... teredo and 6to4 are non-managed services, while 6rd is a managed service... big difference for the user experience. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels-01What do you mean about managed service? I think 6to4 and teredo can be managed.... Best Regards, Janos MohacsiG/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:07 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops Subject: Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC Le 19 ao?t 2010 ? 08:09, Randy Bush a écrit :from 10,000m, what is 6rd but a teredo/6to4 that colludes with the provider who won't do real v6? it's a cute hack, but a hack.Descending to 100m, one can see that, unlike Teredo and 6to4, 6rd provides native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, unlike Teredo and 6to4: - Hosts behind a 6rd CPE are on a dual-stack LAN, and can't determine whether the ISP network is dual stack throughout or 6rd. - From 6rd sites, connectivity with other IPv6 native addresses is guaranteed, which is the case with neither Teredo nor 6to4. You told me once that, for you, "hack" had no negative connotation. Then, "cute hack" can nicely be taken positively, thanks ;-). Cheers, RD PS: Note that I have absolutely no financial interest in any of its actual applications, just being proud of having originated a useful mechanism.